RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00451 
	
   						COUNSEL:  NONE

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the calendar year (CY16) Air Force Reserve Participating Line and Nonline Colonel Promotion Selection Board (V0616A) using the performance recommendation form (PRF) he provides.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive notice of the PRF considered by the promotion board.  His senior rater at the time provided him with a PRF in the mail in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2504, Officer Promotion Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force.  The PRF contained a stratification bullet stating “#1/9 Wing JAs!” and a Group Size of “1/2/4.”  However, after the board met, he discovered the PRF that met the promotion board was different than the PRF he received in the mail from his senior rater.  The PRF which met the board contained the stratification bullet starting “#2/4 JA DPs” and a Group Size of “2/2/4.”  Therefore, he was never provided a copy of the PRF that was submitted to the promotion board as required by the AFI. 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of lieutenant colonel during the matter under review.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/PB recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) Memorandum 16-13, published on 8 Apr 16, announced Board V0616A convening on 3 Oct 16, and established a suspense date of 19 Aug 16 for all PRFs.  ARPC/PB only accepts PRFs two ways: through vPC on the MYPERS, or for units with more than 50 PRFs, by mail. 

ARPC/PB received a PRF for the applicant’s senior rater by 19 Aug 16.  ARPC/PB does not validate that a commander provides a PRF to the eligible officer 30 days prior to the promotion Board, and AFPC/PB does not validate that a PRF provided to the member is the same PRF submitted to the promotion Board.  The PRF which ARPC/PB received is not the same PRF the applicant submitted with his application.

ARPC/PB must accept the PRF submitted by his senior rater as the official document.  The applicant did not provide any documentation from his unit or his senior rater indicating the PRF submitted to the Board was incorrect.  Recommend denial. 

A complete copy of the ARPC/PB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his original request the applicant submitted a rebuttal response to the Air Force Evaluation, in which he takes exception to the OPR’s recommendation to deny his request.  In his rebuttal, the applicant reiterates his contentions that the copy of the PRF he received was different than the PRF which was submitted to AFPC for use on the promotion Board, and this denied him the protection intended by AFI 36-2501.  He takes exception to the OPRs statement that as the applicant he must obtain documentation from the unit or the Senior Rater confirming an error was made, arguing that would be a near impossible task.  (Exhibit E)

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case and agree with the opinion and recommendation of ARPC/PB and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Should the applicant provide documentation from his senior rater stating the incorrect PRF was submitted, we may be willing to reconsider his request.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2017-00451 in Executive Session on 12 Mar 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2017-00451 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 17, w/atch(s).
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/PB, dated 19 Dec 17.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jan 17.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Mar 18.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.